From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750818AbWIOJw7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:52:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750821AbWIOJw7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:52:59 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:3725 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750818AbWIOJw6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:52:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:44:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , "Siddha, Suresh B" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler V2 Message-ID: <20060915094428.GA31195@elte.hu> References: <20060908103529.A9121@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20060908130028.A9446@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20060908170352.C9446@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20060911083734.GA25953@wotan.suse.de> <20060914172617.fc8aef2b.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060914172617.fc8aef2b.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.9 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.9 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.5 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:37:55 -0700 (PDT) > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler V2. > > > > AFAIK this is an important scheduler bug that needs to go > > into 2.6.18 and all stable release since the issue can stall the > > scheduler for good. > > The timing is of course problematic. One approach could be to merge > it into 2.6.19-early, backport into 2.6.18.x after a few weeks. I > don't know if that's a lot better, really - it's unlikely that anyone > will be running serious performance testing against 2.6.19-rc1 or > -rc2. with that release approach it's: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar > I'm struggling to understand how serious this really is - if the bug > is "longstanding" then very few machines must be encountering it? yeah. Ingo